Isn't this incredibly circular reasoning? You're critiquing someone for their action (donations come from selfish need), yet any attempt to make the situation "better" makes it even worse. You're defining their good actions as bad for no apparent reason. The only solution would be not to donate.

Let's apply this reasoning to a different topic - if there is a puppy drowning in a river and somebody jumps in to save it, will you also tell them they are doing it to fulfill a selfish need?

>Isn't this incredibly circular reasoning? You're critiquing someone for their action

I think it's perfect, as arguably, you could say that about the initial point as well (it's not altruistic because ego). When reduced this way, it doesn't really matter if ego is involved if the result actually makes an impact and betters someone else's life.

Well, you can take a fully consequentialist view, but there is a reason we go further in ethics.

My main complaint is with the altruist label. It’s a secularized version of “saint”, as far as I’m concerned. I have no problem with someone doing good deeds for other people and deriving personal satisfaction (and the validation of others) from it. I do this myself. My problem is when we start calling some people “altruists” when they have the same motivations as I do.

As for the puppy, try this: replace it with a black widow spider drowning in a toilet. How many people will save it now?